Another day, another news story about the unpopularity of the Abbott government. One of my American friends asked me to explain why Tony Abbott is an unpopular Prime Minister.
There are plenty of reasons. He is a Catholic conservative and once trained for the priesthood so "progressives" don't like him. He served as Health Minister in the Howard government. He opposed access to the abortion pill RU486.
The pro choice camp campaigned against him with the slogan "get your rosaries off my ovaries." This also harmed his image with women, and for a long time he has been smeared as a misogynist.
Some of his opponents resort to histrionics and claim that he is trying to turn Australia into a Catholic theocracy. I've had face to face conversations with people who make this allegation, and have firmly but politely told them that they are being alarmist. This will never happen.
The last reason is that his government has had to make unpopular decisions to bring government spending under control. This happens every time a Labor government is voted out. Labor governments are very bad at handling taxpayers' money, without any thought given to the consequences. Time and time again it is left to Liberal governments to repair this damage, and cop the political flak for doing this.
It seems that the Australian electorate has a short memory. Right now Labor is more popular than the Liberals. They forget that the former Rudd government was by and large a dysfunctional shambles. Julia Gillard led a more disciplined and cohesive government, but it still lacked fiscal discipline. That is the reason why the Australian government's finances are in such a parlous state now. Unless the Abbott government improves its opinion poll ratings between now and the 2016 election, it faces the very real prospect of being voted out of office after a single term.
http://www.news.com.au/national/newspoll-results-support-for-tony-abbotts-government-plunged-across-all-states-in-2014/story-fncynjr2-1227167569235
Showing posts with label Julia Gillard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Julia Gillard. Show all posts
Saturday, December 27, 2014
Saturday, July 06, 2013
Prying open Pandora's box
Below is an email I received from the progressive left's favourite conservative hate group, Focus on the Family, about last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which may yet have implications for Australia. In the same week as this decision, former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd reclaimed the job he lost in 2010 when in similar circumstances, Julia Gillard removed him in a swift and ruthless party room coup.
Rudd has publicly stated that he supports same sex marriage. His return to office and the Supreme Court decision have been taken by Australia's same sex marriage movement as positive developments. They are hoping that if Rudd's Labor government wins another term at the next election, which was scheduled for September 14, but will now be held at an unknown date, same sex marriage will be passed by the next Parliament.
The Focus on the Family email reads as follows:
"The dust is settling on this week's marriage rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court. The outcome certainly wasn't what we would like as the Court overruled the authority of Congress to define its own laws and disregarded the votes of more than seven million Californians who voted for Proposition 8, the 2008 state marriage amendment defining marriage as one-man and one-woman.
Still, there's a silver lining in the rulings: During oral arguments earlier this year, same-sex marriage activists laid out their best arguments for re-defining marriage before the Court and those claims did not persuade justices to strike down state marriage laws or create a federal constitutional right to genderless marriage.
The majority opinions of the Court seemed to ignore the fact that children already pay the price of other social experiments like divorce and cohabitation. Children of same-sex unions are intentionally denied a father or a mother—not because of injustice in the world but as a result of two adults in a same-sex relationship who decide that what they want is more important than what children need. That's not justice.
The Court also failed to consider that religious freedom is already a casualty in the attempt to redefine marriage. Adoption agencies, churches, florists, bakers, photographers and parents are mostly on the losing end when their religious faith conflicts with the elevation of homosexuality in culture. That's not equality.
Ultimately, God's design for sexuality, marriage and family prevails throughout time and history. Focus on the Family will stand in that truth as we continue to be a voice for marriage, children and religious freedom as this battle continues."
The third and fourth paragraphs of this email strike me as especially pertinent. It hits the nail right on the head. For one thing, in this same sex marriage debate, with different voices clamouring to be heard, little thought has been given to what the wider social consequences of such a massive and radical piece of social engineering might be. Much of this cause's progression has been achieved by the aggressive assertion of rights, with little thought given to what it will mean for society as a whole. Progressives are fond of asserting that while not every marriage produces children, and cite flawed and biased studies which purport to show that there are no adverse affects on children raised by same sex parents compared to those raised by a mother and father.
Secondly, it refers to those who have already been adversely affected by same sex marriage laws in the American state of Massachusetts and Canada. The impact on adoption agencies, churches, florists, bakers, photographers and parents has already been well documented. While at the time of writing, no member of the clergy or celebrant has been taken to court for declining, on grounds of conscience, to perform a same sex wedding, surely it is only a matter of time before this happens.
Likewise, surely it is only a matter of time before similar things start happening in Australia. Just this week the Federal Parliament amended Australia's anti-discrimination laws to remove exemptions for faith based, federally funded aged care facilities. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status is now illegal.
Just as they have in other countries in the Western world, Australia's same sex marriage advocates often claim that if same sex marriage became legal in Australia, there would be exemptions that would protect Christian churches from having to perform same sex weddings, but many legal, human rights, and same sex lobby groups have argued that there should either be very few or no exemptions under the law. When you think logically about how these things progress, this recent legislative reform appears to set a precedent of what churches and faith based organisations may well be faced with in coming years.
http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/40155-it-s-an-avalanche-not-a-slippery-slope
http://www.christianconcern.com
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/07/colorado-bakery-owner-faces-up-to-a-year-in-jail-for-not-baking-cake-for-gay-wedding/
http://lifesitenews.com
http://massresistance.org
http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/12465
http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=5628
http://www.persecution.org/?p=47034
Rudd has publicly stated that he supports same sex marriage. His return to office and the Supreme Court decision have been taken by Australia's same sex marriage movement as positive developments. They are hoping that if Rudd's Labor government wins another term at the next election, which was scheduled for September 14, but will now be held at an unknown date, same sex marriage will be passed by the next Parliament.
The Focus on the Family email reads as follows:
"The dust is settling on this week's marriage rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court. The outcome certainly wasn't what we would like as the Court overruled the authority of Congress to define its own laws and disregarded the votes of more than seven million Californians who voted for Proposition 8, the 2008 state marriage amendment defining marriage as one-man and one-woman.
Still, there's a silver lining in the rulings: During oral arguments earlier this year, same-sex marriage activists laid out their best arguments for re-defining marriage before the Court and those claims did not persuade justices to strike down state marriage laws or create a federal constitutional right to genderless marriage.
The majority opinions of the Court seemed to ignore the fact that children already pay the price of other social experiments like divorce and cohabitation. Children of same-sex unions are intentionally denied a father or a mother—not because of injustice in the world but as a result of two adults in a same-sex relationship who decide that what they want is more important than what children need. That's not justice.
The Court also failed to consider that religious freedom is already a casualty in the attempt to redefine marriage. Adoption agencies, churches, florists, bakers, photographers and parents are mostly on the losing end when their religious faith conflicts with the elevation of homosexuality in culture. That's not equality.
Ultimately, God's design for sexuality, marriage and family prevails throughout time and history. Focus on the Family will stand in that truth as we continue to be a voice for marriage, children and religious freedom as this battle continues."
The third and fourth paragraphs of this email strike me as especially pertinent. It hits the nail right on the head. For one thing, in this same sex marriage debate, with different voices clamouring to be heard, little thought has been given to what the wider social consequences of such a massive and radical piece of social engineering might be. Much of this cause's progression has been achieved by the aggressive assertion of rights, with little thought given to what it will mean for society as a whole. Progressives are fond of asserting that while not every marriage produces children, and cite flawed and biased studies which purport to show that there are no adverse affects on children raised by same sex parents compared to those raised by a mother and father.
Secondly, it refers to those who have already been adversely affected by same sex marriage laws in the American state of Massachusetts and Canada. The impact on adoption agencies, churches, florists, bakers, photographers and parents has already been well documented. While at the time of writing, no member of the clergy or celebrant has been taken to court for declining, on grounds of conscience, to perform a same sex wedding, surely it is only a matter of time before this happens.
Likewise, surely it is only a matter of time before similar things start happening in Australia. Just this week the Federal Parliament amended Australia's anti-discrimination laws to remove exemptions for faith based, federally funded aged care facilities. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status is now illegal.
Just as they have in other countries in the Western world, Australia's same sex marriage advocates often claim that if same sex marriage became legal in Australia, there would be exemptions that would protect Christian churches from having to perform same sex weddings, but many legal, human rights, and same sex lobby groups have argued that there should either be very few or no exemptions under the law. When you think logically about how these things progress, this recent legislative reform appears to set a precedent of what churches and faith based organisations may well be faced with in coming years.
http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/40155-it-s-an-avalanche-not-a-slippery-slope
http://www.christianconcern.com
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/07/colorado-bakery-owner-faces-up-to-a-year-in-jail-for-not-baking-cake-for-gay-wedding/
http://lifesitenews.com
http://massresistance.org
http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/12465
http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=5628
http://www.persecution.org/?p=47034
Monday, June 17, 2013
Fiddling while Rome burns?
 |
| Robert Menzies |
Rudd is more popular with the electorate than Gillard, but not with his parliamentary colleagues. If Rudd were to successfully depose Gillard in a leadership challenge, it would only be because the Labor caucus are motivated by pragmatism. Motivated by self-preservation, they would put up with a leader they dislike. They would still lose the September election, but by a smaller margin. It seems unlikely that Rudd would be more effective as Prime Minister than Gillard. As of the time of this writing, despite all the mutterings and media speculation, there is little chance of yet another leadership challenge after the debacles of February 2012 and March 2013.
There is historical precedent for a Prime Minister returning to the office after a party room coup. Robert Menzies was Prime Minister from 1939 to 1941. In 1949, as leader of the Liberal Party, he returned to office for a second time, and held it for 16 years until his retirement, becoming Australia's longest serving Prime Minister to date. No doubt Rudd is aware of this, but he is no Robert Menzies. Menzies was a competent and capable leader who carried himself like a statesman, whereas Rudd was not.
Gillard is a resilient and formidable leader, and by standing her ground, she would retain more respect with the public than Rudd, who for the good of his party, should accept that he will never again be Labor leader and move on. Australia needs stable, functional government led by a Prime Minister that has the nation's respect, and not leadership sideshows.
Gillard is a resilient and formidable leader, and by standing her ground, she would retain more respect with the public than Rudd, who for the good of his party, should accept that he will never again be Labor leader and move on. Australia needs stable, functional government led by a Prime Minister that has the nation's respect, and not leadership sideshows.
http://theconversation.com/men-flay-gillard-in-poll-15228
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/don8217t-forget-why-kevin-rudd-is-no-longer-prime-minister/story-e6frg6n6-1226664351038
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/don8217t-forget-why-kevin-rudd-is-no-longer-prime-minister/story-e6frg6n6-1226664351038
Friday, April 19, 2013
Sexism? Where?
I read with interest Professor Sally Young's article about sexism in Australian political journalism. Although it's bad grammar to use a double negative in a sentence, I don't disagree with this article. It seems fair to surmise that some people cannot abide having a woman in a position of power.
.
However, why is there no mention of former Western Australian Premier Carmen Lawrence (1990-1993), former Victorian Premier Joan Kirner (1990-1992), or former New South Wales Premier Kristina Keneally (2009-2011)? When they were appointed Premiers of their respective states, arguably their governments were already headed to be voted out of office. I remember when Keneally became Premier of New South Wales, a female commentator said that her elevation to the position was motivated by pragmatism. In other words, her parliamentary colleagues thought that she'd improve their electoral prospects.
I also remember the unflattering cartoons of Mrs Kirner in the Herald Sun, which depicted her as a frumpy housewife in a polka dot dress. This was part of an ongoing campaign which that newspaper ran against the Victorian Labor government at the time. They memorably reported that she burst into tears during a cabinet meeting when one of her ministers demanded money for his office bathroom renovation. Bear in mind that this was during the most severe economic downturn in the state of Victoria since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Yes, there is sexism in some reporting of Julia Gillard's Prime Ministership, but another explanation is the poor standard of political journalism across the board. Male politicians receive their fair share as well. Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard was mocked for his glasses, voice, and for wearing pants that were too long for him during a joint press conference at former US President George W. Bush's Texas ranch, and for wearing a tracksuit during his regular morning walks around the foreshore of Sydney Harbour. Former Labor leaders Kim Beazley and Mark Latham received unfavourable press coverage for being overweight, as has shadow treasurer Joe Hockey.
The real issue is not so much sexism or misogyny (a fashionable word of late) in journalism as it is the overall poor standard of political journalism. Serious political discourse is largely reduced to image and easily digestible sound bites. Surely its more important to consider which political party has the best policies to serve the common interest and keep their state or nation, as the case may be, on the correct trajectory.
.
However, why is there no mention of former Western Australian Premier Carmen Lawrence (1990-1993), former Victorian Premier Joan Kirner (1990-1992), or former New South Wales Premier Kristina Keneally (2009-2011)? When they were appointed Premiers of their respective states, arguably their governments were already headed to be voted out of office. I remember when Keneally became Premier of New South Wales, a female commentator said that her elevation to the position was motivated by pragmatism. In other words, her parliamentary colleagues thought that she'd improve their electoral prospects.
I also remember the unflattering cartoons of Mrs Kirner in the Herald Sun, which depicted her as a frumpy housewife in a polka dot dress. This was part of an ongoing campaign which that newspaper ran against the Victorian Labor government at the time. They memorably reported that she burst into tears during a cabinet meeting when one of her ministers demanded money for his office bathroom renovation. Bear in mind that this was during the most severe economic downturn in the state of Victoria since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Yes, there is sexism in some reporting of Julia Gillard's Prime Ministership, but another explanation is the poor standard of political journalism across the board. Male politicians receive their fair share as well. Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard was mocked for his glasses, voice, and for wearing pants that were too long for him during a joint press conference at former US President George W. Bush's Texas ranch, and for wearing a tracksuit during his regular morning walks around the foreshore of Sydney Harbour. Former Labor leaders Kim Beazley and Mark Latham received unfavourable press coverage for being overweight, as has shadow treasurer Joe Hockey.
The real issue is not so much sexism or misogyny (a fashionable word of late) in journalism as it is the overall poor standard of political journalism. Serious political discourse is largely reduced to image and easily digestible sound bites. Surely its more important to consider which political party has the best policies to serve the common interest and keep their state or nation, as the case may be, on the correct trajectory.
Monday, July 18, 2011
We're in a lot of trouble
Just over one year on from the swift and ruthless Labor party room coup that saw her installed as Australian Prime Minister after deposing Kevin Rudd, and almost a year since her government scraped back into power and narrowly avoided being voted out of office after one term, the ABC has announced that it has commissioned a sitcom about Julia Gillard and her significant other, Tim Mathieson. At Home With Julia will be a four part comedy series depicting the trials and tribulations of Australia's (sort of) first couple. This news comes on the same day that the latest opinion polls show that voter support for the Prime Minister and the federal government has dropped to record lows. Labor's decline in the polls began early last year, and the party thought that Rudd's removal would help to arrest this decline and turn around their political fortunes. Clearly they were wrong.
The next federal election is two years away. I believe in miracles, but as an armchair observer it seems to me that turning this situation around is almost impossible, and federal Labor are facing electoral annihilation. Already there are murmurings about toppling Julia Gillard and replacing her with one of her colleagues, but this brings to mind the cliche about rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. As Prime Minister, she simply hasn't grown into the job, and her government is probably one of the most dysfunctional that Australia has ever had. Bear in mind that I was too young to remember the Whitlam government (1972-1975).
Unless Ms Gillard or her replacement bites the bullet and calls an early election, Australia faces two more years of political instability, not to mention tougher economic conditions as a result of the tenuous business and consumer confidence that this situation contributes to.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Julia, Tony, and Bob
Visitors to this blog, such as they are, will notice that this author has had some involvement in Toastmasters. What would happen if Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, or Australian Greens leader Bob Brown came to a Toastmasters meeting and gave a speech? Every speech made in Toastmasters is evaluated, based on what we call the Praise-Improvement-Praise model. The purpose of this is to give the member constructive feedback, but in a positive, encouraging way.
You might tell a speaker, "I thought you did these things well, but these areas need improvement, but overall I thought you did very well."
Another key role at Toastmasters meetings is that of Ah Counter. "Um", "Ah," "Ya know" and other filler words make the speaker appear self conscious and under prepared, and they're also distracting for the audience to hear. The Ah counter tallies up each members utterance of these words, and reports back at the end of the meeting. Having this pointed out to you can be very funny at times, but the idea is to help you overcome these annoying speaking habits.
Tony Abbott would fall foul of the Ah Counter for his repeated "Um's, Ah's," and other filler words. As for Julia Gillard, her excessive use of the phrase, "Moving forward" would definitely be brought to her attention. In her election launch speech, she managed to say it 24 times. Nice work, Prime Minister.
The Australian Greens somewhat ominously aspire to be the third force in Australian politics, and appear to be well on their way to achieving this ambition. Maybe it's because of my antipathy towards the Greens, but with all due respect, I don't think that Bob Brown is particularly engaging to listen to. He's not given to using overly flowery language, and his droning monotone puts me off. A Toastmasters evaluator would suggest to him that he improves his vocal variety. Oh, for the days of Menzies, Hawke, Killen, or even Gough Whitlam. They knew how to work a crowd.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Secret ballot
Senator Bob Brown of the Australian Greens was interviewed the other day about voting reform. To explain to my overseas reader(s), in Australia, preferential voting is used in the lower house, and the upper house uses proportional representation. He remarked how in his view, it was unjust that it was possible for a certain minor party Senator from Victoria to be elected with 1 per cent of the vote, and yet hold the balance of power in the Senate, alongside Nick Xenophon (IND, South Australia). He’s not perfect, but I think that having him in that position is preferable to the Greens.
I’ve met a couple of Greens candidates. I always make a point of talking to them whenever I see them out in the street handing out pamphlets. There's only certain parts of their platform that I agree with. I agree that we need to reorient our economy towards renewable energy and away from fossil fuels, and have decent, accessible health care and education. Who could argue against that? Then again, they also champion a myriad of other fashionable causes that are popular with the progressive inner city AB demographic.
It strikes me as inconsistent that the Greens oppose cruelty to animals, but don't have a problem with abortion. There's also no way I could ever vote for a party that supports voluntary euthanasia, untrammelled marital and adoption rights for same sex couples, and has a weak stance against illicit drugs. The problem is that when you talk to them they seem so benign and idealistic, yet as a whole their policies are radically evil. I pray that they never hold the balance of power in the Senate, or achieve their ambition of forming a Green government. If they did I'd have to do something drastic and go into self-imposed exile overseas.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Bookmarked
This is a picture of a Kevin Rudd prime ministerial souvenir bookmark. I bought it at the Museum of Australian Democracy gift shop in Canberra, which I visited whilst staying in our nation's capital for the ANZTLA conference almost a year ago. The museum itself is housed in Old Parliament House, and is well worth the visit if you get the chance. The gift shop also sells bookmarks of every one of Australia's 26 Prime Ministers, from Edmund Barton onwards.
As I write this, I think back to my first visit to Old Parliament House on a family holiday to Canberra in January 1987. We went on a guided tour, and sat in the public gallery in the House of Representatives chamber. Our tour guide asked the group, "Who can name Australia's first Prime Minister?" No one else put their hand up but me. "Edmund Barton," I replied. The rest of the group, who obviously didn't know the answer, were audibly astonished to be upstaged by a twelve year old.
I digress. For those of you who don't have magnifying glasses, or don't know how to use image magnification functions on web browsers, the text on it reads as follows:
.JPG)
"Kevin Rudd was born 21 September 1957 in Nambour, Queensland. He won the general election on 24 November 2007 and became Prime Minister. His commitment to climate change and his focus on education and industrial relations during the election campaign were major factors in his electoral success. He has been the Federal member for Griffith since 1998 and the leader of the ALP since 2006. Almost immediately after Kevin Rudd was sworn into office by the Governor-General, Major General Michael Jeffrey, he ratified the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement amongst nations with the objective of reducing greenhouse gases that cause climate change. On 12 February 2008, the first parlimentary sitting day of the new Rudd Labor government, Prime Minister Rudd's apology motion to the Stolen Generation was tabled in parliament. This motion was carried by both sides of parliament. On 13 February 2008, Kevin Rudd delivered the apology speech in parliament."
Little did I know at the time that eleven months later, he would no longer be in office. Others more qualified than me have commented upon the spectacular implosion of a first term Prime Minister, and his rapid, ruthless execution in a party room coup, so there's no need for me to say anything further. I assume they're now also selling Julia Gillard bookmarks, and that in light of recent events, the wording on the Kevin Rudd bookmarks has been updated to reflect the fact that he's no longer in office. It just goes to show how fickle politics can be.
As I write this, I think back to my first visit to Old Parliament House on a family holiday to Canberra in January 1987. We went on a guided tour, and sat in the public gallery in the House of Representatives chamber. Our tour guide asked the group, "Who can name Australia's first Prime Minister?" No one else put their hand up but me. "Edmund Barton," I replied. The rest of the group, who obviously didn't know the answer, were audibly astonished to be upstaged by a twelve year old.
I digress. For those of you who don't have magnifying glasses, or don't know how to use image magnification functions on web browsers, the text on it reads as follows:
.JPG)
"Kevin Rudd was born 21 September 1957 in Nambour, Queensland. He won the general election on 24 November 2007 and became Prime Minister. His commitment to climate change and his focus on education and industrial relations during the election campaign were major factors in his electoral success. He has been the Federal member for Griffith since 1998 and the leader of the ALP since 2006. Almost immediately after Kevin Rudd was sworn into office by the Governor-General, Major General Michael Jeffrey, he ratified the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement amongst nations with the objective of reducing greenhouse gases that cause climate change. On 12 February 2008, the first parlimentary sitting day of the new Rudd Labor government, Prime Minister Rudd's apology motion to the Stolen Generation was tabled in parliament. This motion was carried by both sides of parliament. On 13 February 2008, Kevin Rudd delivered the apology speech in parliament."
Little did I know at the time that eleven months later, he would no longer be in office. Others more qualified than me have commented upon the spectacular implosion of a first term Prime Minister, and his rapid, ruthless execution in a party room coup, so there's no need for me to say anything further. I assume they're now also selling Julia Gillard bookmarks, and that in light of recent events, the wording on the Kevin Rudd bookmarks has been updated to reflect the fact that he's no longer in office. It just goes to show how fickle politics can be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)